(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.12.15 2015나58168

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.12.15 2015나58168

대여금 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant B is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant C and the trial court.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment as to the claim against the defendant B are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the rejection of the testimony of the witness E who is insufficient to reverse the facts acknowledged by the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is in accordance

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around June 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff appears to mean Defendant C, a partner of the same region, made it difficult to expect payment of the normal amount of the Promissory Notes. Upon requesting purchase from Defendant C, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to Defendant C with the purchase fund. Defendant C provided a copy of the Promissory Notes with the face value of KRW 230 million and KRW 270 million with the face value of KRW 230 million and KRW 1,000,000 to the Plaintiff, but the Promissory Notes was a copy of the Promissory Notes with the name of forgery or original. Defendant C breached its duty of care to verify whether the Promissory Notes was forged or copied, or obtained the purchase fund by deceiving the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant C is liable to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff due to damages or tort under the delegation contract or tort.

3. Preliminaryly, the Defendant is obligated to pay 18,00,000 won for unjust enrichment and delay damages therefrom, since it was not used in accordance with the purpose delegated by the Plaintiff as 30,000,000 won out of 18,000 won as the purchase fund for the “billed bill”.

B. According to the fact-finding results with respect to No. 8-1 to No. 4 of the evidence No. 8, and the No. 1 to No. 4 of the first instance court on the claim for damages due to nonperformance of delegation contract or the claim for damages due to tort, two copies of promissory notes delivered

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.03.14 2015고단1810

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.01.19 2017가단12310

-인천지방법원 2016.08.25 2015고단8060

-대전지방법원 2018.04.19 2017고단1653

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2016.02.17 2015고단658